Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Alan Kendall's "What should the BBC do to improve its climate change coverage?

There you go,Alan.

All yours.

Apr 27, 2016 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM is trying to divert attention away from his own failures, and trying to fertilise dissent amongst those at BH who are not impressed by fraudulent claims made by climate scientists.

EM believes (because he has been told by Skeptical Skience yespurts) that we all think alike. Today I am thinking cold roast chicken for lunch, then change the oil on my car.

I also think the BBC's biased coverage of climate skanks is a disgrace.

Fortunately, we still live in a fairly free and democratic country, which is verboten by the Green Blob.

Apr 27, 2016 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Just to be clear. Is the question what the BBC should do to improve its climate change coverage in some objective sense, or what they should to do appear to have improved their climate change coveraged to those who very obviously hold a minority view about this topic?

Apr 27, 2016 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Why would you expect raff to have the answer to that question, Ken? He's as bigoted on the subject as you are.
I thought the BBC were already catering for the minority view, aren't they?
The ones who go round tearing their clothes and lamenting "Ochone! Ochone! We're a' doomed, Ah tell ye!! Doomed!!!"

Or they could perhaps at least admit that their famous 28 expert scientists (and I'm sure you've seen the list of names) consisted almost entirely if environmental activists and BBC apparatchiks — including their own current DG, and I doubt he even knows as much about climatology as you do — with a couple of strange people including someone from the American Embassy rumoured to be the local CIA spook.
All very objective and in keeping with the Beeb's remit to inform, no?

Apr 27, 2016 at 2:04 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike Jackson

perhaps aTTP confuses Raff and EM for a logical reason. Alternatively, perhaps there was no logic to aTTP's post at all.

Apr 27, 2016 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

An important improvement for media to improve its coverage of most issues, climate among them, would be stop being sock puppets for pre-selected points of view.
The lack of accountability for failed climate doom predictions by the so-called consensus is a notable failing of major media.
The lack of serious reporting on skeptic positions is notable.
The lack of covering serious failures in so-called consensus solutions, such as the massive failure of wind power to work as advertised, and the significant environmental negative impacts of large scale wind, is notable.
The credibility given by media to nearly any scary enviro-climate claim, no matter how ludicrous, is notable.
The lack of serious coverage of the complex nature of things like flooding and sea level rise is an area that could be corrected.
The infantile treatment of skeptics by media is an area that could be corrected.
For starters.

Apr 27, 2016 at 4:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Some people are very proud of their achievements using other people's money in corrupting the BBC.

Apr 27, 2016 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


Behave like an infant and you get treated like an infant.

Instead of throwing your rattle out of the pram, it would have helped your cause to have brought real evidence to the debate. Once it became obvious that your position was based on propaganda rather than science, everybody stopped listening to you.

Apr 27, 2016 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man: your post is more of what you are talking about that Hunter’s, I’m afraid. Hunter gave a few broad strokes that few will not be able to identify that is wrong with much of the BBC’s coverage, at the moment. Rather than so casually dismiss and disparage Hunter, why could you not have asked for a few specific BBC articles or programmes that he considers apt examples of his point?

Apr 27, 2016 at 7:30 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM - I think you said that you are an atheist. [Correct me if I misremember] If that is correct, do you have real evidence for the nonexistence of the sky fairy?

Apr 27, 2016 at 7:30 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Once it became obvious that your position was based on propaganda rather than science, everybody stopped listening to you.
Pot. Kettle. Cap. Fit. Foot. Shoot.

Apr 27, 2016 at 9:25 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

EM, can you offer any idea as to why aTTP might have confused you with Raff? It can't have been a typo, and Raff had not posted, so is there a simple explanation, such as regular correspondence, though not necessarily on this blog?

I do not post using my real name, nor do you, or Raff or aTTP, but I do not engage in correspondence with anyone else at this blog. Just curious.

Apr 27, 2016 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


Maybe aTTP is Riff?

Sorry, exiting stage left, c/w coat

Apr 27, 2016 at 11:00 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Green Sand, it is just really curious that those who link back to Skeptical Skunks, and their theories about conspiracies led by Lewandowsky and Cook, are confused by one of Lewandowsky and Cook's writing partners.

Lewandowsky and Cook can't do climate science, but are experts in the unique world that is climate science. It seems that climate science expertise is imploding into a mass of super density.

Apr 28, 2016 at 12:25 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

What, like high density quarks?

Too scary! What if the dog brought one in?

Apr 28, 2016 at 12:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Green Sand, if suitably trained, your dog would be advised to dig a hole, and bury it in the garden. Super density quarks buried in the garden, may prevent spring bulbs from rising, and may disrupt the activities of squirrels trying to conceal their nuts.

Out of curiosity, is your Nom de Blog linked to fertile soil, popular with gardeners and fruit growers?

Apr 28, 2016 at 1:19 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I would be willing to forgive the BBC if they started a new weekly cooking program from a tent in a farmers field in Lancashire, titled "Emma and The Fruitcakes".

Apr 28, 2016 at 2:08 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

can you offer any idea as to why aTTP might have confused you with Raff?

Apologies, I hadn't realised I'd done that. I think it's because I had just read a comment somewhere else by Raff.

Apr 28, 2016 at 7:26 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

aTTP, their sentiments are remarkably similar in their focus.

Apr 28, 2016 at 8:15 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


" your Nom de Blog linked to fertile soil....."

No, it is to remind me of where I started my working life, lab technician in an iron foundry testing the damn stuff.

'Green' being a reference to its state, it was actually black due to all the crap in it and certainly not 'green' in the modern parlance!

Thankfully nowadays the horticultural 'Green Sand' is more my barrow!

Apr 28, 2016 at 9:13 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

"What could the BBC do to improve its climate change coverage?"

Filter out scare stories with the words: "could", "might" or "may" appear in the text?

Open the debate as to why we're agreeing to international agreements that everyone knows will have no substantial effect on global temperatures?

Have a climate science programme where climate scientists explain how glaciers retreating is a sign of anthropogenic global warming when the glaciers started to retreat in the 19th century.

Have a climate science programme where climate scientists explain what cause the holocene, minoan, roman, and medieval optima absent of CO2?

Have a climate science programme where climate scientists explain how these optimums (deliberate change of word) seem to occur at around 1000 year periods, and why, if they do, have we assumed the current warming isn't a recurrence of these cyclical warming periods?

Have a climate science programme where climate scientists explain why despite all forecasts to the contrary, tropical storms have dropped in numbers and intensity, droughts have failed to materialise and why the oceans, after 18000 of rising should now have stabilised?

Apr 28, 2016 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Geronimo: you missed out one important point the BBC should really concentrate on – have reporters who are prepared, and who will question the guff that spills out of the mouths of “experts” who have no qualification or experience in the field that they are “expert” in (I think we are all well-aware of a few who fit that bill!).

Apr 28, 2016 at 10:16 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Martin A

You are inconsistent.

On an earlier post you insisted that lack of evidence proved that there was no Climategate insider at UAE.

Now you insist that lack of evidence does not prove that there is no God.

For the record, I am strictly speaking an agnostic because in formal logic absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In practice, in many situations absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If I find you lying on the floor with no pulse, breathing and a room temperature body; absence of life signs is evidence of absence of life. Similarly I am happy to accept that no UFOs landed on my lawn last night.

I incline towards atheism for similar reasons, ecause any God worth praying to would be evidently present.

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic who lay awake at night wondering if there was a Dog?

Apr 28, 2016 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

If you want to get theological, there are many who will insist that the evidence of God is all around us; we just have to look: “Seek, and you shall find.

I have had enough evidence to convince me, though it is all anecdotal, and can only offer you the advice to look for your own. Should I be wrong and Dawkins right, I will have no time for regret; should I be right and Dawkins wrong, he will have an eternity to reconsider.

There are many “experts” on the Bible who have never read it; there are a lot of sceptics who have studied the Bible with the intention of proving it wrong. Most become converted. It is a book (technically, a collection of books) that cannot just be read; it has to be studied, preferably with help. That is difficult, which could be why so many just dismiss it.

Apr 28, 2016 at 11:28 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Copy from the other BBC discussion thread:-

Lord Turner’s Misleading Views On The Paris Agreement

"......... Everything Lord Turner said about the Paris Agreement and China’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions was wrong. That a person of his influence says things that will mislead the listening public is regrettable. That the BBC airs such statements without any challenges is a disgrace."

Apr 28, 2016 at 11:29 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand